Clinical and radiographic comparison of robot-assisted single-position versus traditional dual-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Ting Li, Wenao Liao, Jiang Hu, Wei Zhang, Yang Yu, Fei Wang, Xilin Liu
{"title":"Clinical and radiographic comparison of robot-assisted single-position versus traditional dual-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion.","authors":"Ting Li, Wenao Liao, Jiang Hu, Wei Zhang, Yang Yu, Fei Wang, Xilin Liu","doi":"10.3171/2024.10.SPINE24808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The potential of robot-assisted (RA) single-position (SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) warrants further investigation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of RA-SP-LLIF in improving both clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 59 patients underwent either RA-SP-LLIF (n = 31 cases) or traditional LLIF (n = 28 cases). Surgical parameters including operative duration, estimated blood loss, and fluoroscopy duration were recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Radiographic parameters were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative and last follow-up times, but both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores. Similarly, ODI and SF-36 scores showed comparable improvements. Radiographic parameters did not significantly differ between the groups preoperatively, postoperatively, and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). Neither group showed significant improvements in pelvic tilt and sacral slope parameters compared to baseline postoperatively and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group exhibited significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL; p < 0.01), segmental lordosis (SL; p < 0.01), and pelvic incidence-LL mismatch (PI-LL; p < 0.01) immediately postoperatively compared to baseline, although these differences were not significant at subsequent evaluations. Similarly, the traditional LLIF group improved the LL, SL, and PI-LL parameters postoperatively. Importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in the Bridwell grade and complications between the two groups (p = 0.83 and p = 0.88, respectively). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group had significantly shorter operative and fluoroscopy durations compared to the traditional LLIF group (p = 0.04 and p < 0.01, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both RA-SP-LLIF and traditional LLIF surgeries achieved satisfactory lordotic correction. However, RA-SP-LLIF surgery demonstrated shorter operative and fluoroscopy times compared to traditional LLIF surgery. Therefore, RA-SP-LLIF is a promising technique for enhancing surgical efficiency, safety, and precision in lumbar spinal fusion procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.10.SPINE24808","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The potential of robot-assisted (RA) single-position (SP) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) warrants further investigation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of RA-SP-LLIF in improving both clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

Methods: A total of 59 patients underwent either RA-SP-LLIF (n = 31 cases) or traditional LLIF (n = 28 cases). Surgical parameters including operative duration, estimated blood loss, and fluoroscopy duration were recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Radiographic parameters were also evaluated.

Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative and last follow-up times, but both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores. Similarly, ODI and SF-36 scores showed comparable improvements. Radiographic parameters did not significantly differ between the groups preoperatively, postoperatively, and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). Neither group showed significant improvements in pelvic tilt and sacral slope parameters compared to baseline postoperatively and at last follow-up (p > 0.05). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group exhibited significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL; p < 0.01), segmental lordosis (SL; p < 0.01), and pelvic incidence-LL mismatch (PI-LL; p < 0.01) immediately postoperatively compared to baseline, although these differences were not significant at subsequent evaluations. Similarly, the traditional LLIF group improved the LL, SL, and PI-LL parameters postoperatively. Importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in the Bridwell grade and complications between the two groups (p = 0.83 and p = 0.88, respectively). However, the RA-SP-LLIF group had significantly shorter operative and fluoroscopy durations compared to the traditional LLIF group (p = 0.04 and p < 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions: Both RA-SP-LLIF and traditional LLIF surgeries achieved satisfactory lordotic correction. However, RA-SP-LLIF surgery demonstrated shorter operative and fluoroscopy times compared to traditional LLIF surgery. Therefore, RA-SP-LLIF is a promising technique for enhancing surgical efficiency, safety, and precision in lumbar spinal fusion procedures.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信